Large language models (LLMs) often demonstrate strong safety performance in high-resource languages, yet exhibit severe vulnerabilities when queried in low-resource languages. We attribute this gap to a mismatch between language-agnostic semantic understanding ability and language-dominant safety alignment biased toward high-resource languages. Consistent with this hypothesis, we empirically identify the semantic bottleneck in LLMs, an intermediate layer in which the geometry of model representations is governed primarily by shared semantic content rather than language identity. Building on this observation, we propose Language-Agnostic Semantic Alignment (LASA), which anchors safety alignment directly in semantic bottlenecks. Experiments show that LASA substantially improves safety across all languages: average attack success rate (ASR) drops from 24.7% to 2.8% on LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and remains around 3-4% across Qwen2.5 and Qwen3 Instruct models (7B-32B). Together, our analysis and method offer a representation-level perspective on LLM safety, suggesting that safety alignment requires anchoring safety understanding not in surface text, but in the model's language-agnostic semantic space.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Heatmap of safety score for different methods on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. When safety training is conducted on English (En), Chinese (Zh) and Korean (Ko) only, the safety score on Swahili (Sw) remains low (50%) across all baselines. In contrast, our LASA framework improves it to 87%.
Figure 2: Left: In the text space, representations cluster by language, causing safety training to fail on semantically equivalent expressions in unseen languages or symbols. Right: In the semantic space, semantically equivalent queries cluster closely across languages and modalities, allowing safety knowledge learned from high-resource languages to naturally transfer to low-resource languages via shared semantic structure.
Figure 3: (Left): Layer-wise Silhouette scores for clustering by language and by query on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Language-based scores follow a U-shaped trajectory, whereas query-based scores exhibit an inverted U-shaped trajectory, and their gap peaks at intermediate layers which we refer to as the Semantic Bottleneck. (Right): t-SNE visualizations of hidden states across selected layers, colored by language (top) and by semantic (bottom). Queries are clustered by semantic at intermediate layers while clustered by language at earlier of later layers.
Figure 4: Framework for Language-Agnostic Semantic Alignment (LASA): Hidden states are extracted from the identified Semantic Bottleneck layer to be processed by a Safety Semantic Interpreter. The resulting safety-relevant semantic signals are then used to condition the subsequent response generation, enabling robust safety generalization across languages.
Figure 5: Relationship between MMLU accuracy on Swahili and safety semantic understanding ability of SSI on Swahili. The saturation curve ( R2=0.988 ) indicates that the Semantic Bottleneck’s effectiveness on safety scales with multilingual capability.
Method
MultiJail
HarmBench_translated
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
Avg
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
Avg
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Vanilla Model
13.0
13.0
37.0
17.0
46.0
39.0
21.00
11.0
16.0
48.0
27.0
58.0
65.0
28.40
SFT
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
38.0
16.0
7.30
0.0
2.0
6.0
4.0
45.0
29.0
9.70
DPO
1.0
4.0
8.0
3.0
19.0
15.0
6.60
2.0
7.0
19.0
7.0
29.0
24.0
10.90
KTO
1.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
19.0
9.0
3.40
0.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
25.0
15.0
5.40
Table 1: Safety Evaluation Results: Attack Success Rate (ASR%) of different methods. All results are multiplied by 100.
M-MMLU
MT-Bench
MGSM
Average
En
Mul.
En
Mul.
En
Mul.
En
Mul.
LLaMA-3.1-8B
65.00
48.50
87.20
66.32
7.41
5.69
53.20
40.17
w/ LASA
65.00
50.00
88.80
67.28
7.54
5.94
53.78
41.07
Qwen-2.5-7B
67.50
48.78
91.60
61.12
7.89
6.41
55.66
38.77
w/ LASA
70.00
58.28
91.20
59.40
7.80
6.21
56.33
41.30
Table 2: Comparison of general performance on English and multilingual benchmarks between base models and those aligned with LASA.
Figure 6: ASR result of LASA on LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct with SSI trained on different layers. Training SSI at bottleneck layer reach clearly the best safety performance.
Figure 7: ASR of LASA on Qwen2.5 and Qwen3 series. LASA stabilizes average ASR at 4% across all scales (7B–32B) on HarmBench and MultiJail. The results show that safety alignment improves with model scale, correlating with enhanced base semantic capabilities.
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Method
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
Avg.
Vanilla Model
12.0
14.5
42.5
22.0
52.0
52.0
24.7
LASA (KTO)
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
12.0
11.0
2.8
LASA (SFT)
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
19.0
11.5
4.0
LASA (ORPO)
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
18.5
6.5
2.9
Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct
Table 3: Ablation of Stage 2 optimization methods. Lower ASR indicates better safety performance.
Model
Total Layers
Bottleneck
Relative Position
Qwen3-32B
64
42
65.6%
Qwen3-14B
40
25
62.5%
Qwen3-8B
36
21
58.3%
Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
64
29
45.3%
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
48
29
60.4%
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
28
19
67.9%
Table 4: Relationship between model scale and the location of the Semantic Bottleneck layer.
Similarity
Vanilla
SFT
KTO
ORPO
MPO
LASA
High Similarity
29.0
4.0
7.0
3.0
10.0
3.0
Low Similarity
33.0
10.0
15.0
4.0
21.0
11.0
Table 5: Attack Success Rate (ASR %) across different methods for high and low similarity cases
Figure 8: T-SNE results on different layers of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Figure 10: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct.
Figure 11: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct.
Figure 12: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Qwen3-8B-Instruct.
Figure 13: Relationship between MMLU accuracy on Swahili and safety semantic understanding ability on Swahili for Qwen3-8B.
Figure 14: Relationship between MMLU accuracy on Thai and safety semantic understanding ability on Thai for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Figure 15: Relationship between MMLU accuracy on Thai and safety semantic understanding ability on Thai for Qwen3-8B.
Method
AR
BN
EN
IT
JV
KO
SW
TH
VI
ZH
Avg.
Direct
95
100
100
100
100
95
80
100
100
95
96.5
Translated
95
100
100
100
95
95
75
100
100
95
95.5
Appendix
Table 6: Safety evaluation accuracy across different languages using GPT-4o directly on original-language responses and on responses translated into English via Google Translate. All results are multiplied with 100.
Figure 16: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. All data translated by NNLB.
Figure 17: Silhouette Score analysis and t-SNE visualizations of hidden states on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. All data translated by Google Translate.
Translation Tool
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
AR
IT
JV
VI
Avg
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
GPT-4o
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
8.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.70
NLLB
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.40
Google Translate
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.90
Appendix
Table 7: Attack Success Rate (ASR%) of different translation tools on MultiJail dataset. All results are multiplied by 100.
Method
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
AR
IT
JV
VI
Avg
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Vanilla Model
11.0
16.0
48.0
27.0
58.0
65.0
21.0
16.0
12.0
10.0
28.40
SFT
0.0
2.0
6.0
4.0
45.0
29.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
9.70
DPO
2.0
8.0
23.0
8.0
32.0
32.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
5.0
13.60
KTO
0.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
25.0
15.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.4
ORPO
0.0
1.0
2.02
1.01
23.0
15.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
Appendix
Table 8: Attack Success Rate (ASR%) of different methods on Harmbench-translated dataset. All results are multiplied by 100.
Method
EN
ZH
KO
TH
SW
BN
AR
IT
JV
VI
Avg
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Vanilla Model
13.0
13.0
37.0
17.0
46.0
39.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
14.0
21.00
SFT
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
38.0
16.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
7.30
DPO
4.0
4.0
13.0
2.0
29.0
16.0
9.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
9.30
KTO
1.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
19.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.40
ORPO
1.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
28.0
13.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
5.10
Appendix
Table 9: Attack Success Rate (ASR%) of different methods on MultiJail dataset. All results are multiplied by 100.
Figure 18: Response examples of different methods on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.
Figure 19: Response examples of different methods on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Safety alignment research for large language models (LLMs) remains concentrated on high-resource languages, leaving open how existing alignment methods perform in low-resource, culturally distinct settings. We study this question for Hausa, a language spoken by more than 200 million people across West Africa. We introduce HausaSafeLM, one of the first Hausa safety preference dataset, built from 10,000 prompts derived from PKU-SafeRLHF: 3,000 human-corrected (gold) and 7,000 machine-translated (silver) examples spanning six harm macro-categories. Using Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, we compare supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and SFT followed by Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) under both data regimes, evaluating on 500 harmful and 200 benign Hausa prompts.We find that the untuned base model appears highly safe by refusal-rate metrics alone, but this reflects limited Hausa generation ability rather than genuine alignment: its refusals are almost uniformly low quality. SFT improves both refusal fluency and precision and benefits substantially from the larger, noisier silver-tier data, while DPO sharpens refusal precision but comes at a steep, largely data-invariant cost to linguistic quality. No single configuration jointly maximizes safety, helpfulness, and fluency. Our results suggest that current alignment techniques teach models when to refuse more readily than how to do so fluently in underrepresented languages, and that refusal-rate metrics alone are an unreliable signal of safety in low-resource settings.
Valdini Douglace Lemofouet, Blessing Ngozi Uzor, Paula Chikaodinaka Anyanwu +4
African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (AIMS), Cameroon · Bayero University Kano · University of Hamburg +1
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant safety disparities across languages, with low-resource languages (LRLs) often bypassing safety guardrails established for high-resource languages (HRLs) like English. Existing solutions, such as multilingual supervised fine-tuning (SFT) or Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), are computationally expensive and dependent on scarce multilingual safety data. In this work, we propose a novel, training-free alignment framework based on Sparse Weight Editing. Identifying that safety capabilities are localized within a sparse set of safety neurons, we formulate the cross-lingual alignment problem as a constrained linear transformation. We derive a closed-form solution to optimally map the harmful representations of LRLs to the robust safety subspaces of HRLs, while preserving general utility via a null-space projection constraint. Extensive experiments across 8 languages and multiple model families (Llama-3, Qwen-2.5) demonstrate that our method substantially reduces Attack Success Rate (ASR) in LRLs with negligible impact on general reasoning capabilities, all achieved with a single, data-efficient calculation.
Jiaming Liang, Zhaoxin Wang, Handing Wang
School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University.
Safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) degrades across languages, yet the internal mechanism driving this asymmetry remains poorly understood. Our work, therefore, presents a systematic mechanistic analysis of multilingual safety using sparse autoencoder (SAE) features, sparse interpretable directions in the residual stream associated with harmful and harmless model behavior across three instruction-tuned LLMs, eight languages, and all model layers. We observe that safety-relevant features are architecture-dependent in terms of where they are located and how they are distributed across layers. Additionally, they are geometrically entangled with language identity and exhibit cross-lingual sharing patterns, i.e., languages share safety features to varying degrees across model depths and architectures. This safety-language entanglement has direct consequences such that ablating safety features impacts not only harmful response rates but also target language, with the degree of intervention predicted by the relationship between safety and language features. Our findings qualify the language-universality of safety alignment as architecture-dependent and offer a mechanistic account of multilingual safety interventions.
Apoorva Upadhyaya, Sandipan Sikdar
L3S Research Center, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany